A Columbia University student suing the Ivy League college for failing to protect him against a fellow student’s accusations of rape also blames Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand for helping destroy his reputation.

Paul Nungesser’s lawsuit, filed last week in Manhattan Federal Court, argues that Columbia violated his rights by allowing Emma Sulkowicz to earn course credit for a project in which she carried a mattress around campus to highlight her claim that he raped her in 2012.

It took a billionaire living the glamorous New York City life to exhibit real Christian courage by going against every elite group in the nation, every media outlet, every well-heeled donor, to defend America from destruction by immigration.

Baptist leader Russell Moore, desperate for liberal approval, claims that Christian conservatives "must repudiate everything they believe" in order to support Donald Trump, who "incites division, with slurs against Hispanic immigrants and with protectionist jargon that preys on turning economic insecurity into ugly 'us versus them' identity politics." (Please like me, New York Times!)

Even after Trump rocketed to the lead with his immigration policies, the media still refuse to discuss the issue. The demand for ever-more poverty-stricken immigrants from primitive cultures has gone beyond cheap labor and has become a mass hysteria.

Half the evangelical "leadership" in America can't comprehend anyone who is not consumed with worldly approval. Russell Moore is afraid to disagree with The New York Times from his religious community in Tennessee. Donald Trump actually is an elite, but he doesn't care what his friends on Fifth Avenue think of him.

Some Christians want proof that a candidate has memorized Bible verses. I want a candidate who lives by this verse: "So do not be afraid of them."

A Protestant church in Oberhausen, Germany is set to remove Christian crosses, altars and pulpits in order to accomodate 50 Muslim migrants who were invited to stay in the building.

“The parish had offered that to the city,” Oberhausen city spokesperson Rainer Suhr told media outlets.

“Before the refugees can move in, the seats have to be taken away. Also the altar, the pulpit and font are movable,” said the superintendent of the Oberhausen church district Oberhausen, Pastor Joachim Deterding.

Sanitary facilities with washing machines will be installed next to the church, while free lunches will also be delivered to the migrants.

While Germany is beginning to turn over Christian churches in order to house the influx of Muslim migrants, Sweden may be about to follow suit.

As we reported earlier this month, the world’s first lesbian Bishop Eva Brunne suggested removing Christian crosses and symbols from a church in Stockholm in order to make the building “more inviting” for Muslims.

Brunne, who also said that the direction of Mecca should be marked, argued that the church should be treated more like an airport, where Muslim prayer rooms are provided.

Hugo Ernesto Castro tried to surrender at the facility in San Jose on Monday, but he was told to go elsewhere even after he had confessed to stabbing his ex-girlfriend and handed over a note revealing where her body was, reports the San Jose Mercury News. A deputy at the prison told the 28-year-old that he was in the wrong place and instructed him to walk two blocks to police headquarters, which he obligingly did. Police found the body of Castro's former girlfriend at the address he gave, and he was arrested, reports the San Francisco Chronicle.

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Cruz rips press in debate

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

The Clinton Foundation has until November 16 to amend more than ten years’ worth of state, federal and foreign filings, but it’s going to be virtually impossible to do so without acknowledging that it has engaged in massive accounting fraud since its inception.

The Clinton Foundation has gotten a good deal of unflattering attention as of late, which isn’t surprising given that its best known namesakes are Bill, a former president and chronic philanderer, and Hillary, who hopes to be the nation’s next leader. Furthermore, the foundation portrays itself as do-gooder nonprofit organization but a cursory look reveals questionable and incomplete disclosures of its activities and accounts, as well as incredible misspending of donor money, virtually since its inception.

Naturally, this can’t be stated in polite society. For example, the New York Times just had a story on the Clinton Foundation that found highly questionable conduct but buried it under the bland headline, “Rwanda Aid Shows Reach and Limits of Clinton Foundation.” Other stories have mentioned that the foundation has partnered with assorted dictators and robber barons. Among the latter is Canadian “mining magnate” (read: "penny stock artist") Frank Giustra, who donated millions to the foundation after Bill Clinton helped him land a mining concession for him in Kazakhstan.

In an honest world, this would be trouble for the Clinton Foundation. But the utterly corrupt Obama administration just let Lois Lerner skate so we don't have any great hope for this scandal ever seeing the light of day.

Yesterday President Obama riffed in front of a Democratic audience, attacking the only enemies he cares about–Republicans. He described Republicans as “extreme,” and said, among other things, “Washington Republicans are alone on their own shrinking island.”

One of America’s parties is turning, increasingly, into a Washington, D.C.-based island that has alienated most voters. But that describes the Democrats, not the Republicans, and Barack Obama is a major reason for the Democrats’ downhill slide. But neither self-knowledge nor contact with reality has ever been a strong suit for President Obama.

This is what's so frustrating about the clamor for Republicans to "reach out" to groups that have never given them even close to a majority of their votes. it's good to be inclusive but it only works if you are not pandering; something that alienates your base even as it fails to get votes from the people that don't like you.

See/ Star Trek was all about white Kirk humping alien babes! This shows a basic lack of comprehension for the show and an attempt to excoriate something she obviously has never had any interest in other than as a well-pummeled punching bag for her ideological hatred of the white patriarchy.

Wondering what the FBI probe will conclude about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private account and server for all her State Department e-mails?

Wondering what the FBI probe will conclude about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private account and server for all her State Department e-mails? Well, Obama already told CBS’s Steve Kroft that it didn’t make for a “national security problem. . . I can tell you that this is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”

If the Lois Lerner case is any precedent, the FBI might as well wrap up its Clinton probe right now.

It's amazing how right Obama is when he predicts what his "Justice Department" will find.

It looks like going to trial would have revealed too much about Team Obama corruption.

In a letter Friday, Justice told Congress: “We found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution.”

In other words, exactly what President Obama ordered up — er, predicted. Back when the “investigation” had barely started, Obama told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly there wasn’t “even a smidgen of corruption” in the case. On “The Daily Show,” he explained that the “real scandal” is that the IRS lacks the budget to do more audits.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a member of the House Oversight Committee, notes: “Here’s a lady who systematically and for a sustained period of time targeted people for exercising their most fundamental rights, their First Amendment free-speech rights. … The chief investigator, the chief lawyer assigned to the Justice Department to evaluate this, was Barbara Bosserman — a maxed-out contributor to the president’s campaign.”

“So it shouldn’t be any surprise the Justice Department said there’s nothing wrong here. But the American people know that there is.”

Legal German immigrant Sabina Durden placed the ashes of her only child, Dominic Daniel Durden, on the podium while she spoke.

“I brought Dominic,” she said, setting the tiny urn on the edge of the podium. “This is what I’ve got left of my son. His ashes. And I carry them around my neck.”

“I was looking forward to becoming a mother-in-law one day, and a grandmother. Well, that never happened,” Durden said. “We had many plans, and many goals.”

An illegal alien from Guatemala struck Durden while he was on his way to work as a 9-11 dispatcher on July 12, 2012, killing him instantly. He had convicted of a felony armed robbery and two DUIs, and had no license, insurance, or registration when he ended Durden’s life and shattered his mother’s.

“As my son’s body lay there, the driver of the truck was trying to flee,” she said through tears. “Luckily, two Marines also on their way to work, witnessed that horrific crash and stopped him from leaving. The first responders arrived — and quickly realized who the dead person was. It was their friend. It was their co-worker. They covered him with an American flag and tried to compose themselves… But they couldn’t and they called for backup and highway patrol.”

Durden was in Atlanta at the time of the fatal accident, and her son had dropped her off at the airport only a few hours earlier. “I didn’t know it would be the very last time I got to touch him, feel him, smell him, hug him,” she said. Only hours later she received the call of “every parent’s nightmare: “‘I’m sorry, but your son is dead.’ I remember screaming and dropping to the floor.” The return flight to California was the longest flight of her life, Durden added, and as she struggled to come to grips with what happened, she got off the plane to see three of her son’s best friends waiting for her, and then “I knew it was real.” The next few weeks were a fog.

Her son’s killer had been in the nation illegally for eight years and returned after being previously deported to Guatemala. Durden and her fiancé had to fight to get him deported once again after he violated probation several times, killing her son only two weeks after his latest “second chance.” Durden added he never showed any remorse, and was able to bail himself out of jail with ten thousand dollars in cash despite complaining he was only a “day laborer.”

The D.A.’s office urged them not to go to trial while assuring them “not to worry,” and that they had the Durdens’ backs.

“The case was heard through a traffic judge,” Durden said. “Who already made up his mind and gave the killer a deal before even read all the files or heard all the victims’ statements. The killer missed two hearings and needed a special interpreter. Later on, he spoke fluent English… He was able to walk around freely, and while he ignored all of our laws, he got to enjoy the protection of those exact same laws. His costs for the many hearings and translators was paid for by tax dollars, while I couldn’t get counseling and therapy, because I didn’t qualify for any financial help from the Victim’s Assistance. The judge sentenced him to nine months, and five years’ probation, for vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence. And restitution of $18,000, of which I received nothing,” Durden said to audible groans of sympathy from the audience.

“The killer of my only child served only 35 days in jail,” Durden said as the audience gasped. “And then handed over to [Immigrations Customs and Enforcement] ICE, who took him to an immigration detention center. He tried to get the immigration judge to grant him asylum, and if it wasn’t for fiancé Anthony Coulter and I — every year and every week, we drove out to the immigration center and we sat there so they would see us,” she said. “Otherwise he would have been released back into the community. But because we were so adamant about it, he was deported to Guatemala in 2014.”

“However, we believe he is back in Riverside, [California], because Riverside is a sanctuary city, who kept him nice, safe, and comfortable, and nobody wanted to hurt his feelings,” Durden continued:

It is the worst kind of pain to lose your child. More pain is added when someone kills your child and you find out that person wasn’t even supposed to be here in the first place. And then you find out the same person who took your child was granted more rights, and given more breaks, than any of us would ever receive — and in addition, was provided shelter from the law in a sanctuary city.

There were many times I wanted to give up and just die. I wanted this excruciating pain to stop. Because it seemed like nobody cared and listened. I as wrong; there are still some people within our government and others that care a great deal, and want to stop this senseless and avoidable deaths of other Americans.

Durden thanked the Remembrance Project for bringing the families of victims of illegal alien crime together.

“And then I gotta thank my personal hero, Donald Trump,” Durden said. “When he spoke up against illegal immigration, and what it does to our country, he caught a lot of heat but he opened the door for us, and we had to walk through. He accomplished in a few minutes what we tried to do… for years and years. We’re being heard now.”

“When is our government coming out of the shadows to protect its own citizens?” Durden demanded to wild applause.

IRS’ LOIS LERNER SKATES; AN UGLY PRECEDENT IS SET

The Law: The Justice Department declined to file charges against IRS enforcer Lois Lerner, who singled out Tea Party groups for scrutiny on political grounds. With no accountability, it's now open season on dissidents.

Is there anyone out there subject to an Internal Revenue Service audit or a multiyear delay in approval for tax-exempt status who won't be concerned that the process is politically rigged against them?

That's the message the Justice Department sent when, in a classic Friday night news dump, it decided to not file charges against IRS tax-exempt groups chief Lois Lerner. In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee, Justice said that while it found "mismanagement, poor judgment and inertia," there was no case for a criminal prosecution.

This is absurd. Lerner was caught red-handed targeting Tea Party and other conservative groups, wrote partisan emails to prove it, then engaged in a massive cover-up effort — with a suspiciously crashed server, an oddly missing BlackBerry and plenty of excuses.

She evaded even more accountability by shielding herself with the Fifth Amendment in Congress. The consequences to her have been . .. retirement on a full pension with all her bonuses to a multimillion-dollar mansion in the deep D.C. suburbs.

As for her victims — and they were many — there is no justice. Now everyone, no matter what their political leanings, will wonder if they too are a political target by an out-of-control agency protected by the Justice Department.

Because that's the real consequence of this failure to hold Lerner accountable: A precedent has been set.

IRS officials now know they can go after any political opponent they want, ruin them any way they wish, swing an election — as occurred with Lerner's actions — and get away with it.

No wonder confidence in government has plunged. Last June, Gallup conducted a survey on confidence in public institutions and found it "below historic norms" and with confidence in justice dropping to its lowest point since Barack Obama took office. Just 23% of the public had high or some confidence in a justice system that could play fairly; 34% had little or no confidence.

The Democrats may giggle with glee at seeing another of their own skate free based on the president's executive actions through his DOJ flunkies.

But two can play that game. If a Republican as unscrupulous as Obama wins the election, the same banana republic politics in government will make Democrats the next victims.

The next GOP president may not be a gentleman of the George W. Bush variety. Political parties should be careful what they wish for.

I see no one on the Republican side who is willing or able to subvert the law to Obama's extent. That's why the Left is not afraid of retaliation.

I had no idea of it's a fact or just a piece of political agitprop until I came to this part:

In the media, Carson has come under fire for controversial comments, including his remarks that Muslims should not be allowed to serve as president, and that Adolf Hitler might have been stopped had the German public been armed.

That's just a lie. It's not just an oversimplification of something someone said, it's a flat out lie. Here is the Meet the Press transcript:

CHUCK TODD: Let me ask you the question this way: Should a President’s faith matter? Should your faith matter to voters?

DR. BEN CARSON: Well, I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it’s inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the constitution, no problem.

CHUCK TODD: So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the constitution?

DR. BEN CARSON: No, I don’t, I do not. … I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.

CHUCK TODD: And would you ever consider voting for a Muslim for Congress?

DR. BEN CARSON: Congress is a different story, but it depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are, just as it depends on what anybody else says, you know. And, you know, if there’s somebody who’s of any faith, but they say things, and their life has been consistent with things that will elevate this nation and make it possible for everybody to succeed, and bring peace and harmony, then I’m with them.

"I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation" is not the same as saying that Muslims should not be allowed to serve as president.

With regard to armed Jews in Germany Carson wrote:

German citizens were disarmed by their government in the late 1930s, and by the mid-1940s Hitler’s regime had mercilessly slaughtered six million Jews and numerous others whom they considered inferior … Through a combination of removing guns and disseminating deceitful propaganda, the Nazis were able to carry out their evil intentions with relatively little resistance.

He said to Wold Blitzer of CNN:

"the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed."

The fact is that the Nazis disarmed the German people with special emphasis on Jews, making it a great deal easier - and safer for the Nazis who had to do the actual work - to round them up and send them to death camps. He didn't say that Hitler would have been stopped, not once, never. But if you get your news from the Washington Post, you would beleive the lies.

"Students advocate for consensual sex," reads the current subhead of a 2014 New York Times article making the rounds on social media. The article's URL indicates this was originally the main title, but was changed to "Making consent cool."

The implication from the original title is that there are those out there advocating – or at the very least, tolerating – nonconsensual sex.

This is simply not true. No one is advocating for nonconsensual sex. The fact that that even needs to be said shows just how extreme and dishonest activists have become.

There are those out there, however, who are advocating against a narrow definition of consent that defines nearly all sex as rape by default unless a specific and unworkable set of rules are followed.

It means that those who engage in sexual activity have to treat it as a question-and-answer session rather than a passionate encounter. And since a prior dating history or previous sexual encounters "should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent," every sexual encounter has to be treated as if both participants are unknown strangers.

The WASHINGTON POST on Friday declared Hillary Clinton does not suffer from hypothyroidism -- even though her own doctor says she does!

Symptoms of low thyroid function include: Fatigue, hoarseness and impaired memory.Reporter Phillip Bump, consulting with his own doctor, Philip Weintraub, diagnosed Clinton as having 'normal thyroid function' based on her Benghazi performance.But Hillary's internist revealed in August how the Dem front-runner's medical conditions 'include hypothyroidism.'

MORE

Clinton takes a daily dose of dried and crushed pig glands for treatment.

Hillary's health was once again in the spotlight during the final hours of the Benghazi hearing on Thursday. A serious coughing fit raised eyebrows, along with slow body movements and labored breathing.

The canidiate claims she was 'meditating' during breaks.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Hillary's internist did not specify if she suffers from Hashimoto's Thyroiditis, a more serious auto-immune disease.

Friday, October 23, 2015

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton brushed aside emails Thursday that showed she privately told family and world leaders that the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi was a terrorist assault, and said Ambassador Christopher Stevens was responsible for his own decisions regarding skimpy security ahead of his death.

Thursday, October 22, 2015

This was an article written in 2008 about Black columnists and their devotion to Obama. Despite their protests this was racism writ large.

If race is not an issue in this presidential contest (and I believe it is and will be), then how come virtually every mainstream black columnist has been effusively and unabashedly supporting Sen. Barack Obama, and highly critical of and even caustic towards Sen. Hillary Clinton?

Columnists have every right to their views, even if they are one-sided. They are and should be free to give their points of view. But it’s the unanimity that bothers me, for journalism and columnists are supposed to provide a vigorous marketplace of ideas. They’re supposed to be suspicious of the conventional wisdom. And they’re supposed to do some critical reporting along with their commentary. Haven’t we learned anything from the conventional uncritical rush to war by our leading papers, and columnists?

I don’t know every black columnist working these days on papers through the country. And I’m not counting the right-wing black writers like Thomas Sowell, or Armstrong Williams. But I have read many of the mainstream columnists, who are among the finest writers in journalism. And they are almost as one in their praise of Obama and their ridicule of Clinton.

I would expect all these writers to rightly denounce making race an issue. But I wonder if their near unanimity has made an issue of race. The most prominent black columnists who have been wowed by Obama include Eugene Robinson and Colbert King of the Washington Post; Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald; Mary Mitchell, Chicago Sun-Times; Eugene Kane, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel; Clarence Page, Chicago Tribune; Les Payne, Katti Gray Gray [Editor’s note: see a correction regarding Katti Gray at the end of this blog] and Sheryl McCarthy, Newsday, and Cynthia Tucker, editor of the editorial page of the Atlanta Journal Constitution, which endorsed Obama.

Newsday’s Sheryl McCarthy acknowledged that virtually every black columnist was supporting Obama, “I see nothing wrong with that,” she wrote me. “For about 140 years blacks have been voting for…white candidates…And now there is finally a viable black candidate who happens to be a very strong candidate. Why on earth wouldn’t they support him?….Aren’t black columnists people, citizens and voters? I can’t tell you why black columnists are largely supporting Obama.”

Don't lie Sheryl, you know and I know that racism runs through your veins.

Read the whole thing.

Keep in mind that it's the white Liberal owners of these newspapers that hire the black racist columnists to write for them. And they are still at it.

Obama, Now Available in Vanilla

Communism: Really, Really Boring

Cranky Old Jewish Man is the new Cool Black Guy

Despite the groans of disappointment from Biden's fan, it looks like he won't be running for President any time soon ... unless the inevitable Hillary is indicted and can't fight to stay out of jail and run for President simultaneously.

But according to Bud Norman, the Democrat Party's base in pumped for Bernie and one more surprise in the run for the White House is not out of the question.

These crazy mixed-up kids today don’t understand that “socialist” is a dirty word, either, just as they seem not to understand that any of the dirty words are dirty words, and their ironic hipness is such that they can embrace a Cranky Old Jewish Man as the new Cool Black Guy, and the press has been obliged to report that his crowds have been bigger and more enthused than Clinton’s almost everywhere for months now, which is eerily reminiscent of the last time that Clinton was prophesied as inevitable, so as much as we wish it weren’t so Sanders still strikes us as an ongoing possibility. A Biden candidacy would have split the “establishment” vote from Clinton in the primaries and with Obama’s implicit approval would have stolen many of her crucial black voters and drained little from the very enthused ranks of mostly-white Sanders supporters, and thus would likely have been a boon to Sanders, but even without that gift he still seems from our perspective at least a serious contender if not an outright front-runner.

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

...the putative front-runner Hillary Clinton is running against her husband’s record of tough-on-crime measures and defense of traditional marriage and insouciance about sexual assault while the self-described socialist and surging insurgent and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is arguing that even after seven years of Obama the economy is horrible because we just haven’t lurch far enough left yet, the party seems to agree that Black Lives Matter and others don’t, and from our fixed position seem awfully far left at the moment.

Grant was not everyone's favorite commander during the Civil War. In fact, President Lincoln was his only major supporter. The reason for that was, unlike McLellan, the Union Army's Commander-in-Chief who was much adored by his troops because he never put them in harm's way, Grant was a dogged fighter.

Even though he won the battle [Shiloh], Grant came under severe fire for the number of casualties at Shiloh and was moved to a support role. Lincoln still thought highly of him, though. “I can't spare this man; he fights,” was the president’s assessment.

Although Coach Kennedy’s prayers are verbal, he does not pray in the name of a specific religion or deity, and he does not say “amen.” Each post-game prayer lasts approximately 15 to 20 seconds, during which Coach Kennedy is unaware of who may or may not be in the vicinity. Coach Kennedy’s sole intent, as motivated by his sincerely-held religious beliefs, is to say a brief prayer of thanksgiving and then move on. Coach Kennedy has never received a complaint about his post-game personal prayers.

To summarize, Coach Kennedy engages in private religious expression during non-instructional hours, after his official duties as a coach have ceased. He neither requests, encourages, nor discourages students from participating in his personal prayers, or coming to where he prays. His prayers neither proselytize nor denigrate the beliefs of others. And he has never received a complaint about his post-game personal prayers. Under these circumstances, there is no constitutional prohibition against Coach Kennedy’s private religious expression, regardless of whether students voluntarily come to the location where he is praying.

The Liberty Institute issued a letter to the school district asking them to revoke their prohibition on postgame prayer in time for the Knights’ October 16 homecoming game. The organization has also pledged to represent Coach Kennedy should legal action prove necessary.

Despite the fortuitous match between my message and the ‘Uncomfortable Learning Speakers Series,’ my talk was cancelled by the group several days prior to the event.

“Thank you for agreeing to speak,” read the email, “but we’re not going to be able to host this event.”

Though my contact didn’t give a reason, the day before he’d sent me this email: “Dear Ms. Venker, A quick heads up…We’ve been advertising the event, and it’s already stirring a lot of angry reactions among students on campus. We just wanted to make you aware of the current state of students before your presentation…”

When I pressed further as to why the event was being cancelled (though of course I knew why), he conceded that Williams College “has never experienced this kind of resistance” to a campus speaker.

When Sanders applied for conscientious objector status, he did so knowing that another person would have to fight specifically because his religious, or moral beliefs did not exempt him from service. So why does Sanders believe that a pacifist’s moral beliefs must be protected even if it burdens others, while a Christian can be compelled to violate his or her beliefs specifically because it burdens others?

The answer to this question lies not so much in legal vagaries as in a misconception many Americans hold about the purpose of constitutional rights. There is general agreement that the First Amendment exists to protect religious minorities. But when applied to mainstream Christianity, many of these same Americans argue that social justice trumps free religious expression.

The Bill of Rights is not H.L. Mencken—it does not exist to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. It exists to ensure that the natural rights of all Americans are not violated. There is no justification for treating the religious freedom of the dominant religion in our society any differently than we treat any other religious group. Increasingly, however, we are doing so. This is why nobody is forcing Muslim or Orthodox Jewish bakers to participate in gay marriages.

The current progressive penchant for burdening the dominant culture in ways it does not burden cultural outliers is based on an assumption that that very dominance acts as a protective force. They view mainstream Christian beliefs as inherently protected by its majority status. But there is a paradox here, because they also insist, rightfully, that the United States is not a Christian country. Essentially, they treat Christian practices as inherently protected by what they perceive as its dominant status. But, in fact, Christian practices, like all other religious practices, are only protected by the First Amendment, not by custom, which is subject to constant change.

Sunday, October 18, 2015

The news out of the Perpetual War on Terror is pretty grim these days. The US military knowingly but “accidentally” bombed a hospital in Afghanistan, killing 22 doctors and patients. Just days later, the president decided not to draw down troops in the country as previously planned, but will instead keep nearly 6,000 of our sons and daughters in the country until at least 2017 when his term ends. At the same time, the inner workings of the president’s drone war, including questionable intel, lax target timeframes, and horrifying collateral damage ratios, have been brought to light by a whistleblower.

But you’d be forgiven for not noticing any of this. While it has been reported in the news media, there has been almost no secondary public reaction. I think that’s entirely because of one factor: Barack Obama won the last election, not Mitt Romney. If Romney had been elected in 2012 and in the year before his reelection campaign had bombed a hospital, decided to keep troops in Afghanistan, and had details of his robot assassin program leaked, things would probably look a little different today.

If Romney were president right now, the White House would be surrounded by protesters and candlelight peace vigils night and day. Some would wave American flags, some would wave signs calling for impeachment, some would have pictures caricaturing the president as Hitler or an animal. They would chant “Not in our name!”, or “Bring them home!”, or “Hey ho, hey ho, Romney has got to go!”

If Romney were president, nightly news reports on CBS, NBC, and ABC would have regular features on war crimes, quagmires, and collateral damage. CNN would be wall-to-wall with team coverage of protests, interviews of bombing witnesses, and Anderson Cooper walking through rubble in full body armor.

If Romney were president, every political analyst left of Judge Napolitano would be fretting over the war-weary public turning the upcoming election into a referendum against the president and his party. Vox and FiveThirtyEight would have maps showing how many Senate seats Republicans would lose because of the president’s sure-to-plummet approval rating. And then there’s MSNBC.

If Romney were president, MSNBC would be holding mock war crimes tribunals on Chris Hayes, explaining the ins and outs of the process with expert guests. Lena Dunham would be on Maddow every night aghast (but still giggling!) at this warmonger-in-chief. Chris Matthews would be yelling at Michael Moore, trying to find out when charges would be filed at the Hague.

If Romney were president, Democrats in Congress would be calling for hearings and investigations for each transgression: the bombing, troop levels, and drone policy. Chuck Schumer would hold daily press briefings scolding the wreckless president from behind the glasses perched precariously down his nose. Someone would accurately quote Sheila Jackson-Lee condeming the terrible bombing of the “orphanage in Pakistan”.

But Mitt Romney isn’t president, Barack Obama is, so no one cares. When the One, the Nobel Peace Prize Winner, the Lightbringer, the Calmer of Seas, the History-maker, the Healer of Wounds, He Who Will Make Us Respected Again bombs a hospital, extends a war he said he already ended (Promise Fulfilled!™), and uses flying death robots to kill [REDACTED]s of bystanders and labels them “enemies” anyway, we assume it’s a bug, not a feature, and we excuse it. Shame on us.

Ann Coulter makes a good point. If the Democrats can write off the gun-rights vote by demonizing the NRA - calling it their biggest enemy - why should Republicans pander to a small group of illegals that will never give them the majority of their vote.

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley bragged about passing the strictest gun-control laws in the country (which explains why Baltimore is such a safe city). Asked which "enemy" he was proudest of, O'Malley said: "The NRA." (Loud applause -- especially from the radical Muslims in the audience!)

I gather Democrats have written off the gun vote.

Plenty of liberals own firearms -- or at least have armed bodyguards, such as Rosie O'Donnell, Jim Carrey, Michael Moore and Michael Bloomberg.

But Democrats have made a calculated decision that they are not going to win a majority of gun owners, so they denounce them with abandon, making no concessions at all.

Why don't Republicans do that with the Hispanic vote? Somehow, the left has convinced the GOP to obsess over winning people who will never give us a majority of their votes, which is the exact opposite of the Democrats' strategy for themselves.

I would wager that Democrats get more votes from NRA members than Republicans do from La Raza members (0). But try to imagine a Republican answering the "enemies" question: "La Raza."

Republicans don't need to treat Hispanics with the contempt that Democrats treat gun-owners. We do not dislike Hispanics. We do not dislike any group.

We just have to protect Americans first -- American jobs, American taxes and American social programs being bankrupted by immigrants. Most voters don't think it's an outrageous imposition to ask people to obey our laws.

Donald Trump opened his campaign talking about Mexican rapists, pledged to build a wall and deport illegals -- and has soared to the top of the polls.

The massive Hispanic blowback consists of this: Trump is getting about the same percentage of the Hispanic vote as Romney did.

I have no doubt that the 73 percent of Hispanics who will be voting against Trump are prepared to be much angrier about it than the 73 percent who voted against Romney. But the result won't look any different on election night. Voting machines don't register angry glints in people's eyes.

On the other hand, by driving up the white vote -- to say nothing of the black vote -- we will see a difference in the Republicans' box score on election night.

The Holy Grail year for Republicans is supposed to be 2004, when President Bush won a record-breaking 40 percent of the Hispanic vote. He had to turn his entire White House into a Hispandering operation to do that -- and he still lost the Hispanic vote.

It's crazy to deform our whole platform in pursuit of some group that won't give us at least 51 percent of its vote, anyway. The Democrats ignore white voters and they were 73.7 percent of the electorate in 2012. Hispanics were only 8.4 percent that year.

I haven't seen an estimate of the electoral percentage of gun-owners, but with one-third to half of all Americans owning guns, it's a lot more than 8.4 percent.

Democrats know not to fritter time on constituencies they can't win, but have buffaloed Republicans into wasting resources on a quixotic bid to win a slightly larger -- but still losing -- percentage of the 8.4 percent of the electorate that is the Hispanic vote.

You've been conned, GOP. You are never going to beat the Democrats at sucking up to foreigners. And your conservative base will flee.

The GOP should expend precisely as much effort fawning over the Hispanic vote as Democrats do over the gun vote, the pro-life vote and the white vote.

Here’s the Cornell Sun piece on the lack of diversity among Cornell faculty: Cornell Faculty Donations Flood Left, Filings Show. “Of the nearly $600,000 Cornell’s faculty donated to political candidates or parties in the past four years, over 96 percent has gone to fund Democratic campaigns, while only 15 of the 323 donors gave to conservative causes. . . . Although students and professors alike said they consider Cornell’s faculty generally Democratic, nearly all remarked that they had not expected to see donation numbers so dramatically skewed.” I like the English professor who says he’s a Democrat because he’s a “scientist.”

Friday, October 16, 2015

A really great response to a letter from a a gay man demanding Christians accept his "lifestyle."
(read the whole thing):

I have many sins, but I will not tell you they are not sins. I come to Christ a sick and broken man looking for healing. You apparently come a sick and broken man looking to be assured you were never sick and broken to begin with. That is the only real difference between us. Or I should say, it’s the only real difference between Christians and “progressive Christians.” Both groups are sinful, both groups are weak, both groups need Christ desperately, but one wants — though they may so often fail — to go Christ’s way, and the other wants Christ to go theirs.

Third, I’m tired of hearing this “inclusive” stuff. Yes of course the Faith is made for people like you. It’s made for all people. It’s not a cult or a club. There’s no entrance exam or membership fee. Christianity is for everyone. If that’s what you mean by “inclusive,” fine, but a better word would be “universal.” In any case, that isn’t what you mean, is it?

When you ask for an “inclusive” Christianity, you ask for a Christianity that, rather than calling you to serve it, bends down and serves you. You’re asking to be “included” in the Faith on your own terms. That’s just not how this works, brother. As Christians, we have no authority to “include” you in that way. You must include yourself....

Yes, as you mention, the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11) was welcomed back by his father. But have you read the entire parable? The son realizes the error of his ways, makes the journey back home, and when he arrives he pleads for forgiveness. “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.” Wow, that’s, like, a pretty intense declaration. Notice he didn’t waltz back to his dad’s place and casually brag that he blew his fortune on hookers and booze but he’s not sorry and intends to get right back to it first thing tomorrow. If he had, I think the story would have ended differently.

Vladmir Putin isn’t challenging U.S. leadership in the Middle East, President Obama declared in an interview with 60 Minutes filmed on October 6 and broadcast on October 11, “and the fact that [Russia and Iran] had to [send troops to Syria] is not an indication of strength, it’s an indication that their strategy did not work.” In a contentious dialogue that drew repeated, incredulous interjections from interviewer Steve Kroft, the President insisted that those both in the Middle East and Republican Party who questioned his approach wanted to commit “several hundred thousand” U.S. combat troops to “police the region”.

The Commander-in-Chief went on to share that he had always been skeptical of U.S.-backed train-and-equip efforts in Syria. The skepticism seems justified, though the President seems unwilling to acknowledge that many of his critics warned him these efforts were likely to fail. In a truly shambolic series of darkly comic failures, President Obama’s initiative budgeted $500 million and fielded a few dozen fighters, most of whom were quickly captured or neutralized.

Is this a sample of the kind of leadership that poor, bumbling President Putin will never understand? In any case, President Obama cited the Paris climate change accords and the international anti-ISIS coalition as examples of the kind of true leadership that Vlad the Imploder cannot match. “Over time, the community of nations will all get rid of [ISIS]”, the U.S. President intoned, and a “transition”, with buy-in from “key players”, could take care of Syria.

But there is an assumption that this is not really what Obama wants. That's not a settled question.

Here is an assumption that Mead makes that more people doubt:

Russia today seeks to disrupt, undermine and ultimately dismantle America’s order building will and capacity; President Obama wants to uphold and extend it. [are you really sure?]

This much, President Obama has right. But what President Obama doesn’t acknowledge, or at least didn’t on 60 Minutes, isthat while he is a constructive statesman [are you really, really sure or do you just hope so because the alternative is just too hard to beleive] and Putin is a destroyer, Putin is having much more success ripping bits of the order down than Obama is having holding it together.

The problem“As a researcher, I’m not trying to produce misleading results,” says Nosek. “But I do have a stake in the outcome.” And that gives the mind excellent motivation to find what it is primed to find.

Read the whole thing. As it applies to Global Warming, scientists who come up with alternatives to man-made warming are not apt to get any more government money and may even lose their jobs.

A former NSA intelligence analyst has claimed that a senior European diplomat told him that the entire government of a European country considers president Obama to be literally mentally unwell.

John Schindler, a security expert and whistleblower who now writes for The Daily Beast, has claimed that a senior EU official from an undisclosed country also inquired about impeachment proceedings, saying that the nation believes Obama is not fit for office.

.@20committee Our #POTUS projects himself in a manner that makes him appear to have a egomaniacal sociopathic narcissistic god complex.

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

According to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.... But the key is firearms in the hands of private citizens.

The popular assertion that the United States has the industrialized world’s highest murder rate, says the Harvard study, is a throwback to the Cold War when Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher than American rates. In a strategic disinformation campaign, the U.S. was painted worldwide as a gunslinging nightmare of street violence – far worse than what was going on in Russia. The line was repeated so many times that many believed it to be true. Now, many still do.

Today violence continues in Russia – far worse than in the U.S. – although the Russian people remain virtually disarmed. “Similar murder rates also characterize the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and various other now-independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R.,” note Kates and Mauser . Kates is a Yale-educated criminologist and constitutional lawyer. Dr. Mauser is a Canadian criminologist at Simon Fraser University with a Ph.D. from the University of California Irvine. “International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error.”

By the early 1990s, Russia's murder rate was three times higher than that of the United States. Thus, “in the United States and the former Soviet Union transitioning into current-day Russia,” say Kates and Mauser, “homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce, other weapons are substituted in killings.”

“There is a compound assertion that guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why the United States has by far the highest murder rate,” report Kates and Mauser. “Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated," the statement “is, in fact, false.”

There's a how-to manual for gun grabbers on how to exploit tragedy.

“And did you know that there is now an official propaganda manual that has been put out for gun control advocates?” asks Snyder. “This manual actually encourages gun control advocates to emotionally exploit major shooting incidents to advance the cause of gun control.” It’s a how-to manual on manipulating the public’s emotions toward gun control in the aftermath of a major shooting.

“A high-profile gun-violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence,” asserts the guide, an 80-page document titled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,” “We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence.” It also urges gun-control advocates use images of frightening-looking guns and shooting scenes to make their point.

“The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak,” the guide insists. “The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts.” In other words, they time their propaganda carefully. Just when it will alarm you the most."

Do we want to be more like the UK?

Despite the very strict ban on guns in the UK, the overall rate of violent crime in the UK is about 4 times higher than it is in the United States. In one recent year, there were 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the UK. In the United States, there were only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people during that same year. Do we really want to be more like the UK? The UK has approximately 125 percent more rape victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does. The UK has approximately 133 percent more assault victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does. UK has the fourth highest burglary rate in the EU. The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.